There's a movement called "Men going their own way" kind of the opposite of feminism but with a bit more bitterness and hate. Paul Elam is a spokesperson for them. He's got the cold dead eyes of a shark and makes my blood run cold

There's a movement called "Men going their own way" kind of the opposite of feminism but with a bit more bitterness and hate. Paul Elam is a spokesperson for them. He's got the cold dead eyes of a shark and makes my blood run cold.

MGTOW appears to be a valid movement, which, via the Buddhist principle of cause & effect, appears to demonstrates another effect of Feminism. Chapter 37 of the Samyutta Nikaya says if women do not behave virtuously, men will expel them; just as women expel & divorce unvirtuous men. As rape crimes increase in some parts of the Western world, some Feminists or ex-Feminists are complaining when there are no men to protect them. Since Feminists are left-wingers who generally seek to rely on govt or Big Brother or Big Sister, they only have the govt to protect them. Due to the left-wing culture of legal action they encourage, it becomes too risky too try to protect them. However, the MGTOW movement certainly appears to have sexual predators in it. These appear to be not men going their own way but sexual predators who want women to slavishly submit to their voyeuristic sexual fantasies. There is a channel on You Tube called MGTOW 101, while having some valid opinions, has many opinions that are just sexual predatoriness.

Last edited by DooDoot on Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's a movement called "Men going their own way" kind of the opposite of feminism but with a bit more bitterness and hate. Paul Elam is a spokesperson for them. He's got the cold dead eyes of a shark and makes my blood run cold.

MGTOW appears to be a valid movement, which, via the Buddhist principle of cause & effect, appears to demonstrates another effect of Feminism. Chapter 37 of the Samyutta Nikaya says if women do not behave virtuously, men will expel them; just as women expel & divorce unvirtuous men. As rape crimes increase in some parts of the Western world, some Feminists or ex-Feminists are complaining when there are no men to protect them. Since Feminists are left-wingers who generally seek to rely on govt or Big Brother or Big Sister, they only have the govt to protect them. Due to the left-wing culture of legal action they encourage, it becomes too risky too try to protect them. However, the MGTOW movement certainly appears to have sexual predators like Paul Elam masquerading in it. These appear to be not men going their own way but sexual predators who want women to slavishly submit to their voyeuristic sexual fantasies. There is a channel on You Tube called MGTOW 101, while having some valid opinions, has many opinions that are just sexual predatoriness.

Really, is he a sexual predator? As in has he actually been violent towards a woman? I know he abandoned his wife/partner when his daughter was a baby, which to my reasoning doesn't give him the right to pontificate. Didn't know he was an actual predator though. Has he been charged with anything?

Sorry. I just amended by post. I confused him with someone else. By "sexual predator', I am not using the term legally but generally as a man chasing sex. The videos I referred to criticise women who sleep around but praise men who sleep around. MTGOW 101 is not men going their own way but men wishing to treat women their own way.

Sorry. I just amended by post. I confused him with someone else. By "sexual predator', I am not using the term legally but generally as a man chasing sex. The videos I referred to criticise women who sleep around but praise men who sleep around. MTGOW 101 is not men going their own way but men wishing to treat women their own way.

Well I can't see him having much success in getting laid judging from his attitude and bitter hate rants. No more attractive to women than a feminazi would be to men

When I lived in a monastery as a layman, I dressed in a way where Thai people knew I lived in a monastery. Plus I had lots of responsibilities so I would have to go to the large town/small city, occasionally. Sexy teenage school girls would circle me & test me, just like Thai women will test you, for your morality. It was fun. In traditional Thai culture, husbands & wives do not even hold hands in public, let alone show affection. A woman traditionally will not marry a man who has not undertaken a rains as a monk. Amongst practicing Thai Buddhists, it is certainly true your ability to be respected is directly proportional to how little interest you showed in the Thai women and girls.

I don't think anyone is against that, but some feminists took this a bit further and pushed too far. Some feminists, either intentionally or unintentionally, associated the liberation of women with promiscuous sexual behavior, so women who choose to be more conservative about sex became under fire.

Absolutely. In my experience, talking about sex with feminists and liberals is severely limited, with many taboos.

Not really. I spoke my mind in the beginning, when I said girls often dangerously are seeking 'self-affirmation' (rather than mere physical pleasure) when they are promiscuous. If sex was merely physical, apart from STDs, it would not be dangerous at all. The Buddha would praise it. In my experience & observation of life, my conclusion is the more people have sex outside of marriage or prior to marriage, for the most part, the more they struggle to maintain a relationship or maintain a marriage once they decide to attempt to settle down. I theorize or hypothesize that something I call a "bonding instinct" is often broken or damaged, thus the phrase: "damaged goods". Thus, these people get older, lonelier, more desperate & often more medicated. I know lots of them.

MN 19: So too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation and defilement...

But how are they to practice non-harming when women are expected to use hormonal contraceptives (which have possible negative side-effects) or otherwise risk unwanted pregnancies (and abortions)?

And this isn't just potential physical harm. Living in the constant fear of unwanted pregnancy, or knowing that the husband's "love" depends on the woman's willingness to risk her health and life -- that's not easy. I know there are women who do not mind taking upon themselves such risks and such a compromise. But so far, I haven't found anyone who would teach how to become like that.

Absolutely. In my experience, talking about sex with feminists and liberals is severely limited, with many taboos.

In my experience, this politically correct taboo is so prevalent among women that even women who physically & mentally live an extremely moral sex life will speak as though sexual liberalism is the norm & acceptable. My 80yo mother is merely one example. My mother's sex life has not changed since I was a child but her views about sex have greatly changed (via the indoctrination she receives from TV & radio). Also, I have friend who is extremely sexually prudish in her behaviour (all of her life, despite her physical beauty) but when it is about taking about sex, sexual conservatism is a taboo (because she particularly has been heavily conditioned, due to working for the government, to be politically correct). In summary, these women appear to speak not from their inner hearts & inner values but from what they sense is socially acceptable. It appears they do not want to be socially alienated or ostracised. Feminism seems to prey on this female tendency.

But how are they to practice non-harming when women are expected to use hormonal contraceptives (which have possible negative side-effects) or otherwise risk unwanted pregnancies (and abortions)?

And this isn't just potential physical harm. Living in the constant fear of unwanted pregnancy, or knowing that the husband's "love" depends on the woman's willingness to risk her health and life -- that's not easy. I know there are women who do not mind taking upon themselves such risks and such a compromise. But so far, I haven't found anyone who would teach how to become like that.

I was only referring to Buddhists in my comment rather than to all people. For aspiring Buddhists, I suppose it is a matter of communication & entering a marriage/relationship primarily on the basis of compassion (helping each other end suffering) rather than on the basis of lust & craving. But, sure, the issue you raise is a modern issue. For example, my mother did not use any birth control (because it didn't exist) but had no problem controlling her sex life (which my father had to accept because my father also believed in the finality or vow of marriage). Again, Feminism has helped change both male & female views towards marriage.

From this we'll move on to "marriage". In everyday language, everyone understands this word to mean the ceremony that joins a woman and man according to social customs. That's marriage in worldly terms. However, in Pali, the language of Dhamma, the word "marriage" is samarasa, which translates as "having equal (sama) flavor, taste, duty or function (rasa)" through Dhamma or in Dhamma. This means that two people with correct wants and needs are united as one....

Marriage is possible even though the skin and flesh of the two partners never touch. This is because their wants are the same and their responsibilities are equal. For example both genuinely want to transcend dukkha using the same principles of practice. Both persons are satisfied in the unified Dhamma practice and in the fruits mutually desired. This is what we call "having equal flavor" which is marriage in Dhamma language and in Pali. The meanings of words in Dhamma language are always as clean and pure as in this example.

In my experience, this politically correct taboo is so prevalent among women that even women who physically & mentally live an extremely moral sex life will speak as though sexual liberalism is the norm & acceptable. My 80yo mother is merely one example. My mother's sex life has not changed since I was a child but her views about sex have greatly changed (via the indoctrination she receives from TV & radio). Also, I have friend who is extremely sexually prudish in her behaviour (all of her life, despite her physical beauty) but when it is about taking about sex, sexual conservatism is a taboo (because she particularly has been heavily conditioned, due to working for the government, to be politically correct). In summary, these women appear to speak not from their inner hearts & inner values but from what they sense is socially acceptable. It appears they do not want to be socially alienated or ostracised. Feminism seems to prey on this female tendency.

It's interesting that you ascribe so much to conditioning (and as such, that the women's stances and actions are somehow less than conscious or less than deliberate).
In contrast, it seems to me that at some point, a woman actually consciously makes those choices, that she weighs the pros and cons of heeding her sense of morality against the burdens this would incur socially, and decides in favor of complying with the social mainstream.

I was only referring to Buddhists in my comment rather than to all people.

I was referring specifically to Buddhists, actually. At least the Western ones, they not rarely seem to have the same attitudes toward sex as mainstream, secular, non-Buddhist people.

From this we'll move on to "marriage". In everyday language, everyone understands this word to mean the ceremony that joins a woman and man according to social customs. That's marriage in worldly terms. However, in Pali, the language of Dhamma, the word "marriage" is samarasa, which translates as "having equal (sama) flavor, taste, duty or function (rasa)" through Dhamma or in Dhamma. This means that two people with correct wants and needs are united as one....

Marriage is possible even though the skin and flesh of the two partners never touch. This is because their wants are the same and their responsibilities are equal. For example both genuinely want to transcend dukkha using the same principles of practice. Both persons are satisfied in the unified Dhamma practice and in the fruits mutually desired. This is what we call "having equal flavor" which is marriage in Dhamma language and in Pali. The meanings of words in Dhamma language are always as clean and pure as in this example.

I was referring specifically to Buddhists, actually. At least the Western ones, they not rarely seem to have the same attitudes toward sex as mainstream, secular, non-Buddhist people.

I don't disagree here, which is probably the major contradiction of Western Buddhism; which often focuses on meditation yet does not have sexual attitudes that can overcome the major hindrance to meditation, namely, sexual desire. I sense Western Buddhism is mostly a money making activity, where American (Joseph Goldstein) style "vipassana" is more akin to some kind of psychotherapy.

I can't even imagine two people, a man and a woman, living that way. I actually can't envision that a Buddhist man would want that. A woman, yes, but not a man.

Once a woman "catches" a man, yes, a woman may want to live that way. As for a man, it takes lots of wisdom & compassion to be able to do this. Once upon a time, it is was often inevitable a man living like this. But today, with so much choice in Mara's world, men & women move on to other (barren) pastures.

Rebellious disobedient women fighting back against the left-wing feminism that supports official globalist govt unregulated immigration.

Interesting stuff. You often post things which make me question my views DD, I like it.

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha